I have found this blog interesting, appalling, in grace, disgraceful, …

Comment on ‘Yes, Creation!’ at the General Conference Session by Shirley Heisey.

I have found this blog interesting, appalling, in grace, disgraceful, argumentative, clear insight, ambiguous, focus, and all over the board…

Can someone remind me of the purpose of this blog?
A Was it meant to discuss the fact or fiction of “evolution,” which ever definition is meant?
B Is it to debate the processes of Divine communication?
C Is it meant to prove just how stalwart is the defender of TRUTH?
D Is it meant to generate a concensus of opinion (possibly apart from prayer)?
E Is it to determine just how “the problem” (which I consider HUGE)should be dealt with?

I believe in absolute truths. I also believe in different facets of truth. I believe that individuals all approach “the ELEPHANT” blindly–blind to the “other side of the elephant.” No two descriptions will be totally the same.

God CREATED us with different understandings, senses… It is divine to respect our differences. That is respect for PEOPLE.

God created TRUTH. Micah 6:8 suggests that God would also have us walk HUMBLY–for none of us has a corner on truth, or the full viewpoint. Only GOD has a corner on TRUTH. It is our aim to all get in GOD’S CORNER–in other words, find and see TRUTH AS HE SEES IT. That includes a balance between LOVE and JUSTICE. The truth as it is IN JESUS comes with GRACE.

I can appreciate the thoughts presented by Mahabir Ramkhelawan. He tried to introduce the balance between TRUTH and JUSTICE. I fear he was misunderstood.

Some comments made were attacks on people, not concepts. We have every right to judge between TRUTH and ERROR. We should never judge the person, supposing that we “know” why a person is thinking along such “evil” lines.

We should be sincere in searching for truth. We should suppose that every other person is just as sincere in that search. there is no room to pass judgment on the motives of the others.

Our church, we must remember, was founded precisely because some people in other churches dared to be “open-minded” enough to investigate truth. Through prayer and Bible study they found TRUTH, and it was different from what they previously believed. That is the result of an open mind. That is the foundation of the Adventist church.

How could they have found truth through being open-minded? How is it that they came out of error? Their hearts were RIGHT (motive) and the Holy Spirit was invited into their study.

The JEWS defended “truth” to the point of murder. Jesus defended TRUTH to the point of death. I see a subtle difference here.

Shirley Heisey Also Commented

‘Yes, Creation!’ at the General Conference Session
MURDER: death to someone else to serve self-interests(dominion at its
DEATH: giving self wholly to serve God’s interests (holiness)

Recent Comments by Shirley Heisey

Northern California Conference Votes to Act Independent of the General Conference
Much enjoyment of someone’s excellent humor in writing the 10 Reasons a Man Should Not Be Ordained. Thanks for posting.

Northern California Conference Votes to Act Independent of the General Conference
Thank you, Sean, for replying to my query on Gen 3 and 4. I have read the NIV, but put less stock in NIV than KJV, which has a better reputation in our circles. IF the NIV translation applies in Gen 4:7 – that “sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.” Then is it fair to assume that Gen. 3:16 also means that “you shall desire your husband, but he will master you.”
Is the same Heb. language used in both texts? I don’t know Biblical languages.

I do believe in the principle of Eph. 5:21, as well as 5:22, etc.
Somewhere in EGW I received the idea that God wants to bring us back to the stated relationship that originated in the Garden. Restore the Sabbath; restore the pre-fall marriage relationship. Sin causes tension, separation and bitterness… The closer we come to Jesus, the less desire we shall have to dominate each other. Harmony between the sexes can exist when we (self) is hid in Christ. Domination of one human by another human of either sex is to interpose self between God and mankind, who is to be our true Master. A gentle leader (husband) will inspire a submitting wife.

Thank you for reading, and perhaps responding as you see fit.

Northern California Conference Votes to Act Independent of the General Conference
Sean Pitman: Thank you for your explanations and referring to quotes from God’s word in its various forms. I have read the Equality statements in EGW and understand the Bible quotations that indicate that truly ‘in Christ there is neither male nor female.” I still have a question about the Genesis statements found in Gen. 3:16 and Gen. 4:7. I read this in the KJV, and have never heard anyone address this comparison TD.

Both verses say basically the same thing. When I read it, I thought, Whoa! I never saw THAT before.
3:16 – …”her desire shall be to her husband, and he shall rule over thee.”
4:7 – …”your (Abel) desire shall be to him (Cain), and he (Cain) shall rule over thee.” (Abel).

I have heard a husband say that in 3:16 God commanded the husband to rule over the wife (after all, she was deceived and fell first. [implication])

When I read 4:7 and saw that the same verbiage was used, it did not make sense to e that God would have COMMANDED Cain – evil – to rule over Abel – good. I now understand this structure to mean, as a RESULT of sin in the heart, the stronger may take advantage of the weak, and seek to dominate. There is where EGW says NEITHER should seek to dominate the other, for it destroys love.

I also noticed in Genesis that God gave THEM dominion, repeated twice in the same chapter. I have always heard it said that God gave Adam dominion. ‘Adam’ was used like a family name, Mr. & Mrs. Adam.

Am I misunderstanding or misinterpreting the scripture meaning of Gen 3:16 and 4:7?

Northern California Conference Votes to Act Independent of the General Conference
@Henry C Hills: Greetings, Brother. I am interested in your possible comparison between the two texts: Genesis 3:16 with Genesis 4:7. Both texts in KJV follow a very similar phrase pattern. One is between Adam and Eve; the other between Cain and Abel. I have heard that in 3:16 ‘he shall rule over’ [Eve] was a command of God as punishment for disobedience and the fall. In Gen 4:7, the ‘he shall rule over’ statement is the DISOBEDIENT shall rule over the OBEDIENT. I can hardly believe that it is a command of God for evil to rule over good; yet the phrase is so nearly the same in both texts as to demand the same application. Is it not that God is describing the result of sin now residing in the heart that causes the stronger to try to control and dominate the weaker? That would fit both scenarios, would it not?
Both texts basically say, ‘your desire shall be to [him] and he shall rule over you.’ which is NOT a command, but a result of the sinful nature.

Northern California Conference Votes to Act Independent of the General Conference
Ultimately, if we cannot grasp the plain “thus saith the LORD” of the Bible, and base our doctrines thereon, we have no possibility of finding “unity.”@Tongkam:

What you say about basing doctrine upon Bible is true. It seems to follow that, where there is no clear ‘Thus says the Lord,’ we should have no doctrine. To create a doctrine where there is no direct instruction appears to be ADDING to the Holy Scriptures.

The same seems true, also, of the 3 GC statements, which basically were non-statements based on a lack of ‘Thus saith the Lord,” which morphed into prohibition without any decisive basis.